On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 19:41 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 02:07:28PM -0800, Thomas Lord wrote: > > > I look at the value of the cell phone and similar talk > > this way: Even supposing I personally narrowly focus > > on "plug" my work will be more valuable if I define it > > in terms of protocols and data formats and use cases > > that help that plug work well with those mobile devices. > > Mobile phones do not have to be mobile. And unlike plug > computers, they work well off USB chargers plugged into > 12 V infrastructure.
My point is only that I don't need to care about the underlying hardware or even much of the low level OS. (Other people do! I'm grateful for experts who do things like trying to bring up a kernel on this or that, or port a program to this or that!) I'm trying to say don't worry about this debate as its currently framed. Instead: my view is that if we keep the upper parts of the stack - the user-facing code - simple and robust, then it can run and port easily to anything that can handle a few simple protocols and data types and a pretty undemanding programming environment. I'm looking at the design "top down" rather than bottom up. If starting a few days ago I want to write an "app" for the freedombox ... or a few cornerstone apps ... I don't have to worry so much about what the bottom of the stack looks like, other than to not assume much about it. -t > > _______________________________________________ > Freedombox-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss _______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
